bcs_consultingfandomcom-20200215-history
12 Angry Men: Unfolding Dynamics of Group Therapy
12 Angry Men: Unfolding Dynamics of Group Therapy Cedric B. Stewart CNDV 5312 Group Theories and Techniques October 17, 2014 ' ' 12 Angry Men: Unfolding Dynamics of Group Therapy By using the film 12 Angry Men, the goal of this project was to capture the essence of group therapy and the dynamics that are involved. Using the 1957 original version, the film revolves around the deliberations of an all-White all-male jury who is tasked with deciding the fate of an 18 year old Latino male that has been accused of stabbing his father to death. The gravity of the case is only heighted by the fact that a guilty verdict would automatically require the imposition of the death penalty. In the seemingly open-and-shut case, eleven of the jurors originally vote for guilty with only juror number 8 (Mr. Davis) casting a not guilty verdict. Although originally cast for the sake of initiating a discussion, the ensuing deliberations provide a backdrop for the audience in which to observe the group member’s characteristics as they begin to unfold. As the audience watches and through their interactions, the jurors’ complex personalities (which range from wise, bright, and empathetic to arrogant, prejudiced, and merciless), preconceptions, backgrounds and interactions began to take shape. In the film, students of counseling are able to view an interpersonal approach to group counseling. Under this approach, the focus of the counseling relationship is on the client’s interpersonal relationships (in this case a member of a jury) and not on their childhood or past experiences (Yalom, 1995). Furthermore, Yalom (1995) proposes that parataxic or interpersonal distortions or not only based on past relationships, but also on distortions of reality that emerge out of interpersonal needs. These distortions are evident throughout the movie as many of the characters express very strong and immediate likes or dislikes for each other often through angry and heated exchanges. Such heated exchanges offer the counseling student the opportunities to vicariously experience the often intense anger of group members as it unfolds. Stages of Group Development Gladding (2012) suggest that groups evolve in a healthy manner, disintegrate due to a lack of care, or wind up in some form of chaos. The reality is that all groups, both healthy and unhealthy ones, go through a number of developmental stages that ranges from four to six distinct phases. Not all theorist, however, agree, that stages must and do exist. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this paper, I will demonstrate the development of groups using the jurors from the movie 12 Angry Men as outlined by Tuckman (1965) and Tuckman and Jensen (1997) proposed five stages. Stage 1: Forming Phase During the forming stage, initial caution is prevalent and group members tend to want to be accepted and try and avoid confrontation in order to avoid rejection. Initial conversations tend to be superficial and are centered on events that do not generally pertain to the group. In the movie, the judge is actually leading the forming stage as the jury is receiving its instructions. Clear to the viewer that these men are strangers to each other, the viewer is also aware of the juror’s realization that they are tasked with a serious responsibility of coming to consensus concerning the guilt or innocence of this young man. Stage 2: Norming Phase ''' According to Tuckman (1965) the norming stage actually begins early in the process and may in fact overlap with other stages. During this stage, the establishment of all of the rules and boundaries are incorporated and exist on both the conscious and unconscious levels. Related to group formation, this stage refers to the internal workings and guidelines of the group that are most often exhibited through their behaviors. When comparing this stage to the group, the judge through his instructions to the jury is essentially establishing a set of externally provided norms. Simultaneously, group members also silently begin to assess the behaviors of their fellow jurors in an effort to ascertain the overall climate of the group. As the group begins its task of deliberations and the jurors begin to confer with each other, more of the members begin to more outwardly display themselves through their beliefs and biases. The result of these interactions is that the group settles upon a commonly held accepted set of rules of behaviors that tend to be accepted by everyone. For this group, a norm of expressiveness and participation is fairly quickly agreed upon at some level (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jenson, 1977). '''Stage 3: Storming Phase The group of 12 men is sequestered in a rather dingy looking room with their only link to the outside world provided by the bailiff. The room is extremely warm and their perception of a lack of air conditioning only adds to their growing level of physical and emotional discomfort. The jurors arrange themselves around a long table and the first process comment is made when one juror notices that the door has been locked. This locked door serves as a group symbolism that they will remain isolated together as a group until their task is ultimately completed. This observation also functions as a link as the group moves to the storming stage. During this phase of the group process, personal agendas are brought to the forefront as members begin to want to force the completion of the task for various reasons. For example, juror number 7 can be described as a clownish baseball obsessed impatient salesman who dresses flashy, chews gum, and wants to leave to attend a baseball game. He continuously uses baseball metaphors and seems to lack a lot of human concern or compassion for the defendant and the immigrant juror number 3. The jury foreman, juror number 1, is a high school assistant head coach and is mostly concerned with his role as the foreman and tries to keep the proceedings formal while maintaining his authority. This juror is easily frustrated and overly sensitive. He lacks any natural leadership characteristics which are only emphasized by the natural born leadership abilities of juror number 8. When an initial straw vote is taken in order to determine the proclivity of the jury, the results reveal that 11 of the12 jurors are in favor of a guilty verdict with only 1, juror number 8, voting for acquittal. This initial vote and the influence that juror number 8 has on the group remains the focus of the group for the entire movie with a great deal of frustration and stormy periods occurring for the group as formality gives way to confrontation between members and individual roles begin to emerge. For example, as juror number 3 continues to press a personal agenda that is heavily influenced by his own experiences with his teenage son, he resorts to name calling and disrespectful nonverbal behavior toward the other jurors. The resulting split that begins to emerge in the group tends to divide members into either an effective cohort or a cohort that is solely focused on rigid logic and communication skills. During this time, the washroom is used metaphorically by members for space “outside of the group.” It is in this space that members also begin to lobby for their own points of view. Moreover, the washroom also serves as a brief respite from the growing intensity of the group in the deliberation room. Stage 4: Performing Phase ''' The jurors decide to take a second vote resulting in a 9 guilty and 3 not guilt split of the group. This attempt at a second vote can be construed as the group moving into what Tuckman (1965) referred to as the performing stage. At this stage in the group development model, there is clear evidence that the group has become more intently focused on the task at hand and that the group members are doing a better job of listening to each other. In addition, safety has become a major concern for the group and this is exemplified by the behavior of juror number 3 losing all self-control. This rude and husky man appears to be a bully within the group and is forceful and loud-mouthed. Arrogant and quick tempered, juror number 3 remains defiant until the very end. It is at this stage of the process that more functional group members like juror number 11begins to elevate their level of participation within the group. Originally reserved and thought of somewhat as being an outsider by the other American White males of the jury, this German born immigrant who speaks with a heavy accent expresses reverence for American democracy, its system of justice, and the infallibility of the law. Later, after verbal participation becomes more distributed, another vote is taken and the split becomes 6 guilty and 6 for acquittal. Tensions began to rise even higher and are only temporarily relieved by the sudden rain and the air conditioning coming to life. Prejudices begin to surface and the threat of physical violence is escalated. During this stage of the deliberation process, ultimately logic and persistence persevere over emotions and private agendas. The group members use this opportunity to reflect on their own personalities as they react to the obvious changing direction of the jury’s decision. Eventually, some members withdraw while others continue to fight; though most simply align themselves with the ongoing process and direction of the majority. '''Stage 5: Adjournment Phase Once a unanimous verdict has been reached, the court’s bailiff once again functions as a bridge to the outside world from which they have been sequestered. During this adjournment phase, there are a lot of symbolic nurturing behaviors that indicate the group has reached the final level. These symbolic behaviors are evident in small gestures such as when one juror assists another juror with putting on his coat or laying a comforting hand upon a shoulder. In the final scene, it is an especially poignant moment when two members introduce themselves while waiting for an elevator. The symbolism is rich with the two having shared a powerful experience without the necessity of the usual data and trappings of the general society. Conclusion I felt that originally in the beginning, the jurors really did not care about each other or had any cohesiveness beyond small talk. In fact, there was quite a bit if animosity between some group members. What I did find interesting was that the fighting in the group actually led to some amount of a fair resolution. Ultimately, I feel that the group was only successful due to the patience, hard work, and stamina of juror number 8, Mr. Davis. It was through his efforts by reaming calm and soft-spoken in spite of the insults and adversities was he able to move the group forward to a more logical conclusion in the pursuit of their task. References Gladding, S. T. (2012). Groups: A counseling specialty (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399. Tuckman, B. W., & Jenson, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small group development revisisted. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419-427. Yalom, I. D. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.